PDA

View Full Version : Some online-mapmakers are too optimistic!



F19_Ob
02-23-2006, 03:58 AM

Capt.LoneRanger
02-23-2006, 04:20 AM
While pauses offline are mainly caused by your own hardware problems, pauses online are very much dependend on the server, the other players and their and your own ping.

Of course it also has to do with object load (expecially around the airbases on some maps), but the main problem is the lag-causing flak and high-ping players. Playing the same map alone or even offline and the horribly constructed maps run perfectly smooth. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

F16_Neo
02-23-2006, 04:43 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif
Some servers have way way too many unnecessary objects.
I mean, why totally sandbag a base, cause collisions that cause smoke columns that cause even more problems LOL.
And ship ROF must be set much lower than default.

Btw I generally start to notice a decrease in performance whith +30 players in a server.

rnzoli
02-23-2006, 05:09 AM
Originally posted by F16_Neo:
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif
And ship ROF must be set much lower than default.
Actually, the value for ship ROF must be higher than one, in order to tone down the AAA strength. Russian logic - lower ROF means higher value for ROF in the full mission builder http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

I usually set the ROF to 5 on a carrier (instead of default 1), so the result is that it seems to fire in bursts, about 20% of the time it is firing, but then goes totally silent for a few seconds. Kind of unrealistic, easy to sink a carrier that way.

jds1978
02-23-2006, 06:01 AM
as a mission builder i appreciate your input and am taking all of those things into consideration so as to make the maps as enjoyable as possible....

with a little bit of tweaking in the conf. file i can usually play in the "Problem" maps no prob (*cough* Finland maps)

thanks for this post! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/typing.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Hawgdog
02-23-2006, 06:39 AM
Hmmm, owned by a mapmaker this one has, yessss...

Bearcat99
02-23-2006, 06:57 AM
I just keep thinking of that desert map in CFS1 that i thought was so darn cool the first time I went there.... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

TacticalYak3
02-24-2006, 06:34 AM
Good post mate. Probably the favourite campaign (DCG) I host is Normandy 1944, but that map is murder to enjoy online.

The other big fps hit is the new clouds - awesome but tough. Tried using the old clouds but missed the new modelling too much. Went with just cloudless days but was too boring. Presently using Medium setting (Perfect Mode) to tone them down a bit. Related with clouds is adverse weather.

I remove most ships if not critical, and those remaining go to ROF 100. Flak and static objects are reduced.

A good mission builder must have tunnel vision and only provide what is needed to achieve the desired result. All too often one thinks the entire map must be populated. Just not possible due to the complicated modelling in IL-2.

TS!

WOLFMondo
02-24-2006, 07:20 AM
I hate to sound selfish but I like big maps cause I like to fly high, I like allot of flak cause thats how it was, I like big ships because it looks better when your CV is guarded by half a dozen escorts and not on its lonesome which was never the case.

JtD
02-24-2006, 07:47 AM
Set the CV to silent and have the DD's do the job and everything will work ok - and still look good.

F19_Ob
03-05-2006, 07:00 AM
Sometimes online mapmakers eagerness to make it as real as possible totally may render it unplayable if players exeed 30 -40 players.

So no matter how good ones intensions are I think it is better to have playability very clear in ones mind when making maps.
Fortunately it's possible to save a map and fine-tune it when one gets feedback on its playability online.
---------------------------

I have for a long time seen the difference between flying bombers and fighters.
Many fighterjocks have no clue how it is to fly 30 min to target and the get blasted by several fighters before reaching target.
This is the reality for all bomberguys and it really takes a special kind of guy to be able to handle the abuse prolonged.
This also means that many don't wan't to fly bombers or inferior rides at all, wich is very sad. It even becomes sader when one looks at the player list in a dogfight room and notice that the absolute majority discards all but the top fighters, wich renders the rest of the flyables unnesseray.

There luckily is a fix to this aswell http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif:

**Always have one base with airstart for bombers close to target. This way the pilot can choose to make the 30min flight to target and likely get shot down before drop, or take the airstart option and possibly draw more pilots to bombers when they feel they have more than a very limited chance might be more willing to fly again when shot down.

* NEVER allow airstart for FIGHTERS to intercept bombers because the bomberguys chances are still very limited compared to the fighters. (Give bomberguys half a chance to survive ).


I specially make a point of this because I got really pissed today on a server that allowed airstart for topfighters but not bombers.
Bombers had no chance and had a long way to target wich was close to enemy base with airstart.
The enemy had 2 or 4 cannon planes and a bomber has the slimmest of a chance wehn meeting one. When meeting 5 or 6 or 10, there really isn't much idea making that 20- 30min flight.

I lost it when an opposing cannon-fighter-person called me a mamas boy (or similar) when i whined about it. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/compsmash.gif
A bomberguy in this situation really should have the right to whine a little... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

domenlovrec
03-05-2006, 07:28 AM
Hey, whining makes go world around. Period.

VW-IceFire
03-05-2006, 07:35 AM
I've seen some downright idiodic designs by some map makers who I assume plan to fly for one side only and not the other side. The maps I've made I intend to fly from both sides and have fun either way...if you can't do that then its not ready.

TgD Thunderbolt56
03-05-2006, 07:38 AM
I agree with you ob. I'd like to be able to have all the eye candy and interaction with everything other than just other players, but that is unrealistic given the different level of hardware everyone has. Obviously as time progresses, the median pc muscle level increases and many of the things that used to bring many rigs to their knees are now becoming more mainstream and useable...but not completely yet.

So....having said that, I DO think many online mapmakers are definitely too optimistic when putting together a mission. I've always tried to balance playability, historical accuracy, diversity of objectives etc,..with playability and balance as the primary factors.

I don't do nearly as much map/mission developement anymore but when I do fly online, I'd much rather be on a server that runs smoothly than one that attempts (albeit unsuccessfully) to recreate RL.

The things I look for (and these days expect) from the servers I fly on are as follows:

1. scripted
2. multiple objectives (including ground targets)
3. balanced planeset leaning towards historical accuracy
4. no enemy icons (preferably NO icons at all)
5. more than 1 base to spawn with variable flight distances.


TB

RAF238th_Soak
03-05-2006, 07:41 AM
I have a P4 3.0 gig 800 FSB and a BFG 6800GT 256mb card. My ram is 2 gigs. Anything less than a gig of ram is likely unplayable online with over 20 players. Even 1 gig is borderline (just my opinion). I noticed big improvement when increased to 2 gig of ram. My water is set at 3 and effects at two.....no problem online.

As for bombing if you fly alone your more vunerable. Hook up with group and your odds are much improved.

What alt were you bombing at?

Forums are the place to critque not the chat box where it disrupts game play. Better to use the servers forum too. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

F19_Ob
03-05-2006, 09:08 AM
Originally posted by RAF238th_Soak:
As for bombing if you fly alone your more vunerable. Hook up with group and your odds are much improved.
What alt were you bombing at? :

Airfieldattack on island.
I and another stuka was intercepted at 3000m by spits a few mins from target. We had to make up speed in dives down to cloudcover while dodging the spits.
Our backup plan was to drop our bombs on some target and bail or crashland at enemy base before the fighters of flak got us,since we possibly wouldn't be able to escape over the sea back home.
By crashlanding it is likely to survive compared to bailing and shot at by flak.
We elegantly dodged the spits while losing altiude to gain enough speed for maneuvering.
Rapid multiple Flak got us both just before bombdrop.
I guess the most real thing would have been to bail at the first sight of the spits and try over and over, and over till it worked, but such a thing is outside of our timeframes since it was a long way and if climb high, even longer.

Hehe...Flew in a group of eight experienced il2's once, and though we had some fightercover none of us reached target http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif because of the power of the opposing fighters 30mm cannons. We all were shot down within few minutes by about same number of fighters.
our fighters had only 20mm canons and couldn't do much although they hit them a few times while they blasted the il2's.
We all switched to fighters and the server returned to its normal state = Only topfighters against topfighters.

I fly in different settings depending on availability. In big groups. wich is most fun, or alone, although the chance to rtb is very slim.




Forums are the place to critque not the chat box where it disrupts game play. Better to use the servers forum too. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
Agree chat box is not got for discussions (and there was no discussion at the time, just a few comments). Serverforums however are good and I post,and have posted, lots of feedback over the years aswell, but I think I reach a broader assembly of mapmakers and other concerned in this type type of UBI forum.
I also am member in too many forums already and don't want to sign up any more.

Note that I don't expect a mapmaker to know everything.
My reason for posting is to draw attention to the problems I know of so they can be recognized and discussed and hopefully dealt with.
The solutions can always be varied so they suit the mission.

F19_Ob
03-05-2006, 09:21 AM
from the servers I fly on are as follows:

1. scripted
2. multiple objectives (including ground targets)
3. balanced planeset leaning towards historical accuracy
4. no enemy icons (preferably NO icons at all)
5. more than 1 base to spawn with variable flight distances.

TB

Sounds good to me sir. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/touche.gif Too bad I can't fly so often at GreaterGreentime anymore.

I run on mediumsettings online but I krank it up with water3, trees3, effects2 when watching the track.
A few stutters here and there but lovely to watch lowlevel battles over the waves on rough sea. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif